Invertebrate interests in the World Conservation Union's Species Survival Commission

5 Pages·1994·0.86 MB·

by  T R New

INVERTEBRATE INTERESTS IN THEWORLD
CONSERVATION UNION'S SPECIES SURVIVALCOMMISSION
NEW
T.R,
New, T.R. 1994 06 30: Invertebrateinterests in the World Conservation Union's Species
SurvivalCommission.MemoirsoftheQueenslandMuseum36(IV. 147-151.Brisbane. ISSN
0079-8835.
SeveralinvertebrategroupsfLepidoptera,Odonala,socialinsects,orthopteroidinsects,water
beetles, molluscs) have become the focus of Specialist Groups in the lUCN's Specie**
Survival Commission network. The strong insect bias reflects hislorical zeal and the need
forothersuchtaxon-foeusedattentionisbeingaddressedatpresent;somecandidatetaxafor
future specialistgroupsarenoted. The roleofspecialist gTOUpS is to assess theconservation
needsof'their' taxaandproduceandimplementanActionPlan, formulatingandimplement-
ing the pnonty steps forconservation. An Invertebrate Conservation Task Force has been
formed recently to address relevant priorities and needs invertebrate (•(>n,\er\,auon, Red
Data Books, molluscs, insects, actionpirns.
T.R New, DepartmentofZoohgy,LaTrobeUniversity, BmdocWl Victuna3083,Australia;
30Julv J993.
ITie International Union for the Conservation and the reorganisation of the Conservation
of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN), BOW Monitoring Centre as the World Conservation
known as the World Conservation Union, was Monitoring Centre, administered jointly by
WWF
founded in 1948 and has immense influence as IUCN. and UNEP.
the global leader in conservation matters. It is a The largest of the six commissions of II'
membership organisation which includes about the Species Survival Commission (SSQ is play
60 governments, more than 100 government tng an increasing role in promoting invcrtcbl
departments and about 500 non-government or- conservation, through the activities of a number
ganisations, collectively representing 120 of its Specialist Groups, with considerable m.
countries. petus coming from a meeting in London in 1989
However, invertebrate conservation is a rela- at which (forthefirst time) representatives ofthe
tively recen! component of its activities, for various invertebrate specialist groups and other
which the initial impetus was the formation ofa enthusiasts discussed some of the major issues
'Lcpidoptera SpecialistGroup' in the late 1970s. and constraints. Perhaps the most important out-
This was followed closely by the Invertebrate come was the decision to form an invertebrate
RedDat3 Book project, leading to publication of Conservation Task Force1 to help coordinate
Red Data Books for Invertebrates (Wells et al.. IUCN/SSC interests, determine future priorities
1983) and Swallowtail Butterflies (Collins & and devise 'Strategies' for promoting and im-
Morris, 1985). A number of regional Red Data plementing invertebrate conservation. This has
Books for invertebrates have followed more proved more difficult than anticipated: the SSC
recently, particularly from Europe. The mid- network is composed largely of volunteers, and
cighties was marked also by the formation of most members of the relevant Specialist Groups
several other invertebrate specialist groups, and (below) can devote only a small (and usually
an invertebrate Issue* of the IUCN Bulletin unpredictable) portion of their time to such ac-
'Collins, 1987). That early activity was at- tivities. Participation by chairs of the current
inhntahle largely to availability of funding, and groups, or their nominees, and by otherdevotees
presence of two (at one time, three) permanent was clearly needed, with a chair who had ade-
staffmembers (with assistance) at the then Con- quate time and support. The need for global rep-
servation Monitoring Centre. Their work em- resentationensured thattheTask Forcemembers
phasised the formationofa preliminary database would be widely dispersed, with few chances o\'
on threatened invertebrates, leading directly to personal encounters, and potential chairs were
thecompilation ofthetwoRed Data Booksnoted amongthe mostheavilvcommittedpeople,simp-
above. This periodisdiscussed by Wells (1989), ly because most nl the people suggested for this
wboemphasisedthatdeclinein invertebratework role were known because of their relevant ac-
was necessitated by reduction in core funding. tivities!
UK MEMOIRSOFTHEQUEENSLAND MUSEUM
Thisaccountsetsoutsomeofthepresentatten- 2 Todevelop plans fortheirconservation.
tion to invertebrates within the activities of the 3- To initiate actions needed for the survival ot
SSC, and suggests how this might be increased. species.
4. Toprovideanexpert resource networkon the
RECOMMENDATION 41 conservation ofbiodiversity.
The aims of any of the taxon-based groups,
Theroleofinvertebrate conservation in IUCN which range in scope from single species (some
activities was acknowledged formally by the mammals) through families to orders or total
adoptionofthestatementknown as fcReeommen- regional representation are (1) to determine the
darinn IS/4i\ conservation needs for 'their' group and to set
Atthe 18thGeneralAssembly of IUCN. Perth, priorities, within these, (2) to produce Action
WA,28 Nov-5Dec 1990,thisresolutionon"Con- Planssettingoutthemajorneedsforconservation
servation ofInsects and other Invertebrates' was in practice, and (3) to implement those needs,
adopted by consensus. The background to the which therefore need to be clarified in some
resolution' and its text, arc given by Collins detail, including budgetting, and be practical.
(1991 TheresolutionwasproposedbytheRoyal Recommendations for action Typically range
)
Entomological Society and the Fauna and Flora from the need for statusevaluation through field
Preservation Society, and was prepared by wide survey, for habitat protection, captive breeding
consultation: with the Joint Committee for the programmes, to aspects of legal protection or
Conservation ofBritish Insects, the Invertebrate prohibition ofcapture. In addition, possibilities
WorkingGroup ofthe National Zoo Federation. (nr capitalising on, or gaining mutual benefit
the SSC invertebrate specialist groups, the from priorities of other groups can be relevant:
Societas Europaea Lepidopterologica. and the many important centres for dragonflics coincide
(French) Office pour rInformation Eco-en- with Ihose ofbirds, for example. Formulation of
toroologiqoe.AsCollins(1991)noted, thisdocu- priorities (based both on individual taxa and im-
menthashelpedtoputbeliefsontheconservation portant assemblages) and design of an Action
ofinsectsfirmly intoaninternationalperspective. Plan involves considerable coordination and,
Among other things, the Resolution urged for sometimes, original research to accord
assistance in identifying and executing priority credibility. Action Plans, which have no legal
activities to conserve invertebrates, and support status, are disseminated widely and provide
for SSCactivitieson invertebrate conservation. definitive foci forconservationmeasures
The number of members ofa specialist group
THESSC INVERTEBRATEGROUPS varies according to the needs perceived, and the
availability uf suitable people. Collectively, the
divTehresimtiysbsyiodneovfelthoepiSnSgCa(n'dtoepxreecsuetrivnegbpirolooggriacma-l 9m5emgbreorusps(aitnMtahercShSC199n3e)t.work have about 4800
mes to save, restore and wisely manner species The six present invertebrate specialist gr>
and their habitats') is pursued through the are:
turn uf 'Specialist Groups', most of them Mollusca (18 members)
taxon-focusscd. This approach represents the Lepidoptera (15 members: this group at one
philosophy thai 'specks1 are meaningfulunits in lime encompassed only butterflies, as ihe "But-
communicating conservation concern, win terfly specialist group')
othci levels of 'biodiversity' arc less tangible to Social insects (IS members; at one time Ant
many people. Other groups aire 'discipline- specialistgroup')
d' (for example Captive Breeding. Odonata (15 members)
Reproductions. Sustainable Use of Wild Onhoptcroid insects (15 members)
Species) and a few have been community or Water Beetles (31 members)
habitat based (Coral reef fish) Each group is The Captive Breeding Specialist Group has a
fostered through a chair, appointed for a three discrete 'subgroup' (12 members) for invert
yearperiodand, whereasthereis traditionalcon- tebrau
tinuity and long term membership of many Geographical coverage by specialist groups is
groups,change isalsofrequent.The fourgoalsof inevitably uneven at present. Much impetus for
the SSC are: invertebrate taxon-focusscd conservation has
1. To assess the conservation priorities for e traditionally from Britain and Europe, or
lesand theirhabitats from North America Groupmembershipsre
..
INVERTEBRATES IN THEIUCN SPECJES SURVIVALCOMMISSION My
this,withabout70%ofcollectivemembersb;cscd The Lepidoptera specialist group has also
in ll>csc areas. The 51% European membership produced a Directory ofLepidoptera Conserva-
base in the six main invertebrate groups is in- tion Projects (New, 1990) which it is hoped to
fluenced heavily by the 'water beetles group1 augmentand updateat intervalsanda volumeon
,
whosehistoricalbase(21/31 Europeanmembers) Conservation Biology of Lycaenidae (New,
hasconsolidatedin thatarea. All six groups have 1993), setting out a partial perspective for tJ»e
members in those areas, and involvement from largest family ofbuUerflie>
elsewhere is much more sporadic. Membership Action plans for Mollusca and Odonata are
from the southern continents, for example, is 5 well-advanced,andbothgroupshavedefinedthe
(Africa), 6 (South America) and 8 (Australasia* urgent needs for their taxa. Other groups are
Also, itcould be suggested that thegeographical moving towards assessing the scope and
biiksm membershipsdoesnotrepresentadequate- feasibility ofAction Plans The proceedings ofa
ly many areas where conservation needs are Mollusc Specialist Group meeting, which in-
greatestand mostdifficulttoachieve andpursue cludes a frumewoik for molluscconservation .u
Species-focussingforconservationis. inevitabK lion,areinpress,andarecent reporton European
moredifficult inareasofhighbiologicaldiversity Mollusc Conservation needsIWells & Chatfield.
and low human wealth, anil where ihcre air lew 1992) alsoemanated fiom the Specialist Group
resident specialists in many groups of animals The success of any specialist gioup depcujs
andplants. Thereis undoubted merii inrecruiting greatly on the zeal and enthusiasm ol its mem-
interest from those parts of the world and not bers, and their ability to cover the conservation
imposing a curoecntric suite of conservation needs ofthe taxa.
values likely loalienalemorc local interests One
hemeoftheSwallowtailActionPlan(below),for NEED FOR ADDITIONAL
I
example, was to explore possibilities ofpromot- SPECIALISTGROUPS
ing ranching of rare taxa as a sustainable cottage
industry, as has been pioneered in Papua New Clearly, theexistingspecialist groupsare byno
Guinea.
means fully representative ofthe vast panorama
ol invertebrate animals, or of their geographical
ACHIEVEMENTS OFTHE GROUPS
distribution*. Then- ts a strong bum lOVVAfld the
insects, and several levels of coverage' are
Individually, members ofall the above groups :tit - ftOm a suite bf orders, iht-^ugh single
arcamong the leading advocates forinvertebrate orders,tohabitat-based 'subsets*,orcross-group-
conservation. Some groups have been founded ings b&&ed on a particular way oflife. EdCf) con
imlv recently, and the work ofthe 'Orthopteroid tributes in different, complementary ways to a
insects* group, forexample is only starting to be broader picture of the needs of particular inver-
defined; the 'water beetle' group draws directly tebrate taxa.
on the expertise of the Balfour-Brownc Club in Formation of other groops is likely to occur
Britain, already well-organised as a group con within the next few years, to broaden the
corned about the fate of aquatic Coleoplera and coverage, anda number -I candidategroupshave
their habitats- The Mollusc group has issued been suggested. Most of these concentrate on
several numbers of a mollusc conservation 'flagshipgroups',or groupsofperceived valuers
newsletter {'Tentacle), and the Odonata group indicator taxa. The range of possibilities is enor-
produces 'Reports of the Odonata Specialist mous, and it is important that the most suitable
Group', atthe rate ofone ortwo a year. invertebrate groups should be promoted through
OnlyoneActionPlanforinvertebrateshasbeen thelimited logistic resourcesavailableratherthan
published sn far Phis, lor the Swallowtail Bui- form groups with linle ^rralisiie' conservation
terflies (New & Collins. L991), drew directly management potential.
from the comprehensive account by Collins & it is important that
Morris (1985) and set out a representative senes i) The range oftaxa covered is increased.
of 34 projects which collectively appraised the ii)The most accessible 'key1 taxa Ofthe world's
needs and practicalities for conserving the 78 major ecosystems arc addressed, and the
species or subspecies (of 573 members of the range of habitats increased; the taxa should
Papihonidae) perceived as 'Threatened in the be ecologically informative
earlier volume. Parts ofthis plan arc the subject iii)Aclearrole foreachnew group is seen,rather
ofactiveadvocacy forimplementationatpresent. than simply forming a group with no clear
\u> MEMOIRSOPTHEQUEENSLAND MUSEUM
purpose, perhaps because of strong in- THE 4RED LIST
dividual advocacy.
iv) Where possible, complementarity beIween The IUCN Red List of Threatened Animals
the activities of different groups is sought. (1988, updated 1990) lists and categorises the
The groups should not overlap in interest status of globally threatened taxa, and is as-
unduly - for example by any 'competition' sembledfrom thedatabasesoftheWorldConser-
between taxon-focussed and discipline- vation MonitoringCentre, with input from many
focussed groups, unlesseffective (even, for- knowledgeable workers, including the SSC net-
mal) communication occurs between the work.Wellover2000invertebrates(representing
partiesinvolved. 9 phyla) are included, many listed by species but
V) A .sufficient numbei of concerned and some generaorwhole families (e.g. black corals,
knowtedgubte volunteers to form an effec- Antipathidae) are also noted where they are per-
tive group is available and the major ceived to be under threat Although valuable as
geographical areas where the (axon occurs aninitialsummary, listingofinvertebrates inthis
should have representation on the group. way poses problems (for example, through lack
Wherepossibleprofessional andnon-pr-frfes- of knowledge of precise status, or difficulty of
signal members should be encouraged species-level recognition), and there is a strong
vi)Where possible, the taxa should already be a v.Hil- ihe faunas of temperate regions,
main interest of societies, such as en- where species-level 'protective legislation' and
tomological groups, mollusc enthusiasts, statusevaluation ismostzealous. Forsometropi-
crustaceanspecialists(etc), sothat theremay cal regions, there is a greaterclement of subjet.
beestablishedavenuesforcommunicationto livily in inclusions, becausepreciseknowledge is
a broad knowledgeable audience, and for lacking-oficn reflecting the lack of local-based
seeking advice, or opportunity for group expertise. The invertebrate Specialist Groups are
meetingsatconferences orseminars, and involved in attempting to Update the List lo the
vii)That logistic support i>e available to sustain greatest level ofreliabilitv possible, within their
group's activities. limited resources.
Nevertheless, the diversity oftaxa listed -even
THETASK FORCE without precise details of status - provides
pointers fOI fuuirc need, and one role oftheTask
One role ofthe Task Force, winch is Mill in the tFoorrceefiwniellthbeeitnoveervtaelburaatteetchoesmepoprnoegnttesosfivtehliys ainmd-
process of defining the scope of Us activity
lo recommend optimal uxa around which to at- tphoertaInUtCdNoccuamteegnotrieCsurorfentthreaattte(mMpatcselo&reLdaenfdien.e
tempt to form additional specialist groups,and to
evaluate suggestions and proposals received for 1991; Maceel at , 1493) will be of majoi impor-
these. Itwill play a part in identifying important tance ifl this work,and allocation ofinvertebrates
giips in SSC invertebrate coverage,and adviseon accurately to one or other of these is often dif-
policy and programmedevelopment with respect ficult. Indeed, it is by no means clear whether
itonvionlvveertiedbernattiefsy.iTngheavbernouaedsetfoarsppreocmtsotoifngitsinbvreire-f Cbreitterhieasfaormeinvaesrtfeobrravteerttehbrreaattesc,ataengodriietsmsahyoulbde
necessary 10develop a separate suite ofquantifi-
tebrate conservation, identifying priorities in
able values for them.
their conservation needs and seeking ways for
these tObeaddressedconstructively, Theseissues CQNCLUNION
are to be combined with surveys and summaries
of existing information, examination of the
methodologies and approaches needed, and The science, of invertebrate conservation fa
promoting the role ofinvertebrates in conserva- developing rapidly, and the importance v^'inver-
\ioii assessment, the roles ofc.\ suitconservation, tebrates is becoming recognised moie widely
formulating protocols for reintroduction and (and at more levels) than ever before- The for-
genetic maintenance, and education to improve midable diversity of taxa involved, and the
the public image and appreciation of inver- ecological ubiquityofmanyofthegroupsrenders
tebrates.Ihsummary, theseactivitiescollectivclv the task ofthen effeetive eouservation daunting.
involve increasingtheamount oflogistic support Capability is limited at present, and there is a
for invertebrate conservation, and endeavouring massive chasm between ideals and feasibility
toapply this in the most effective w The increasing profile of invertebrates fostered
.
INVERTEBRATES INTHE IUCN SPECIES SURVIVALCOMMISSION 15
by the IUCN, especially work on the various MAUNDER, M. & MILNER-GULLAND, EJ.
'flagship' groups targeted by SSC specialist 1993.Thedevelopmentofnewcriteriaforlisting
groups, is likely to be instrumental in increasing speciesonthe IUCN RedList. Species 19: 16-22.
global appreciation of invertebrate biology and MACE,G.M.&LANDE,R. 1991.Assessingextinction
conservationneeds, helping toplacingsomeon a threats: towards a re-evaluation of IUCN
Threatened Species Categories. Conservation
far higher level of practical attention than has Biology5: 148-157.
been possible hitherto. NEW,T.R. 1990. 'DirectoryofLepidoptcraConserva-
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS tion Projects* (La Trobe University, Department
ofZoology: Melbourne).
My participation in Towards Biodiversity and 199(3Lep(icdd.o)p.teCroan)s.er(vSapteicoinesBSiuorlvoigvyalofCoLmymciasesniiodna:e
Conservation' was made possible by Financial Gland).
support from the Ian Potter Foundation and La NEW, T.R. & COLLINS, N.M. 1991. Swallowtail
TrobeUniversity.IalsothankDrsS.N.Stuartand Butterflies.Anactionplanfortheirconservation'
A.L. Yen forcomments on a draft ofthis paper. (IUCN:Gland).
WELLS,S.M. 1989.SSCInvertebrateSpecialistGroup
LITERATURECITED work - problems and potential solutions (un-
published discussion paper prepared for meeting
COLLINS, N.M. (ed.) 1987.Conserving Invertebrates. of SSC Invertebrate Specialist Group chairmen
IUCN Special Report. IUCN Bulletin 18 (7.9): and other invertebrate experts. September 1989.
London).
1-20.
1991. InsectConservation -priorities forthe future. WELLS,S.M.&CHATRELDJ.E. 1992. 'Threatened
Antenna 15:73-78. non-marine molluscs ofEurope'. Nature and En-
COLLINS,N.M.&MORRIS,M.G. 1985. 'Threatened vironmentNo64(CouncilofEuropePress: Stras-
Swallowtail Butterflies of the World'. (IUCN: bourg).
Gland andCambridge). WELLS, S.M., PYLE. R.M. &COLLINS, N.M. 1983.
MACE, G., COLLAR, NM COOKE, J., GASTON, K„ 'TheIUCNInvertebrateRedDataBook*.(IUCN:
GINSBERG, L, LEADER WILLIAMS, N., Gland&Cambridge).